The history of the United States military and political interventions in Colombia is defined by a transition from direct territorial intervention in the 19th century to a modern strategy of aggressive economic and naval pressure.
Unlike the January 2026 operation that resulted in the capture of Nicolas Maduro in Caracas, U.S. actions in Colombia have traditionally focused on maintaining the internal status quo and protecting commercial interests through the existing state means.
While President Petro revealed an alleged military plan against his government, historical precedent suggests that Washington has historically preferred to achieve its objectives through internal state pressure rather than external military intervention.
The first US military intervention in Colombia took place in 1846
The roots of these sovereignty concerns date back to the 19th century, specifically to the 1846 Mallarino–Bidlack Treaty, which saw U.S. troops land in Panama, then a Colombian province, on six occasions to suppress local rebellions. This culminated in the 1903 secession of Panama, where the U.S. used warships to block Colombian interference, an event still viewed in Colombia as a foundational violation of territorial integrity.
The mid-20th-century transition to counterinsurgency was codified by the 1962 mission of U.S. Army General William P. Yarborough. Following his survey of the country’s security landscape, Yarborough provided a secret supplement to the Joint Chiefs of Staff that encouraged the formation of a “civil and military structure” to perform “paramilitary, sabotage, and/or terrorist activities against known communist proponents.”
1903 political cartoon. Credit: Unknown artist for the New York Times – Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons.
This recommendation directly led to the 1965 Decree 3398, which authorized the arming of civilian groups, creating the legal foundation for the paramilitary networks that would dominate the Colombian internal conflict for decades. This era was characterized by the 1964 “Plan LAZO,” where U.S.-trained troops used Napalm and bomber aircraft to destroy guerrilla enclaves in Marquetalia, effectively giving birth to FARC as a formal guerrilla army.
The shift to the War on Drugs, 8000 Process, and Plan Colombia
By the 1970s, the U.S. foreign policy focus began to pivot from anti-communism to Richard Nixon’s “War on Drugs,” a shift that significantly deepened U.S. involvement in Colombian policing and intelligence. During the 1980s and 1990s, the U.S. provided extensive training and specialized assets, including Delta Force support, to aid in the hunt for drug capo Pablo Escobar and the dismantling of the Medellin and Cali cartels.
However, this partnership faced a major diplomatic crisis during the mid-1990s “8000 Process,” when the Clinton administration “decertified” Colombia after allegations emerged that then-President Ernesto Samper’s campaign had been funded by drug money. The U.S. revoked Samper’s visa and labeled the country a “threat to democracy,” demonstrating Washington’s ability to exert extreme political pressure without a direct military intervention in Colombia.
The turn of the 21st century marked the most significant escalation of U.S. aid through “Plan Colombia,” an initiative launched in 2000 by President Bill Clinton and continued under George W. Bush. This program provided over US$10 billion in military and economic assistance, ostensibly to fight the drug trade, though it functioned largely as a counterinsurgency campaign against FARC, ELN, and AUC (paramilitary forces).
Through the provision of Black Hawk helicopters, intelligence sharing, and U.S. Special Forces training, Plan Colombia transformed the Colombian military into one of the most capable and technologically advanced force in South America. This period solidified a level of military-to-military integration that effectively turned Colombia into a regional platform for U.S. strategic interests.
Why has the US not carried out a military operation in Colombia?
As of early 2026, several factors explain why a “Venezuela-style” extraction has not occurred in Colombia despite the extreme diplomatic deterioration between President Trump and President Petro. A primary distinction is the institutional alliance; Colombia was designated a Major non-NATO ally in 2022, and the U.S. maintains decades of integrated intelligence and hardware within the Colombian armed forces.
An operation against a sitting president in a consolidated democracy with such deep military ties carries significantly higher geopolitical risks than the raid against an isolated adversary such as Maduro. This long-term partnership has traditionally made a direct coup less attractive than the “sterile and covert” influence of the past.
Instead of direct combat, the current administration has favored a strategy of economic warfare and proxy pressure. By placing President Petro on the Clinton List and the Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) List in late 2025, the U.S. has effectively isolated the Colombian president financially without a single shot being fired between the two countries. It remains to be seen whether Petro’s tentative visit to Washington will get him removed from the Clinton List.
While U.S. Navy vessels currently enforce a “total blockade” in the Caribbean and have executed strikes against what they call drug boats, these actions remain focused on the drug trade rather than a regime-change operation, especially considering that Petro is about to leave office later this year.
This suggests that while Petro prepares for a White House visit to continue to “freeze” military threats in the region, Washington’s primary leverage continues to be the profound economic and military integration between the two nations.